Editor's NoteThe following facts and records are presented to evaluate the Commonwealth of Virginia's compliance with federal child support enforcement law. Trdic v. Marni — a Loudoun County Circuit Court case — is referenced solely because it is the proceeding in which DCSE's own witnesses and counsel described, under oath and on the record, the system's inability to implement certain court orders. This page makes no claims about, and takes no position on, the private legal disputes between the parties in that case. All documents referenced or linked on this page are public records — available through court archives, obtained under federal or state Freedom of Information Act requests, or otherwise publicly accessible and cited to their original source. No privileged, confidential, or private document is published on this page.
Virginia certified its child support system as compliant for years, drawing $1.42 billion* in federal funds. In open court, DCSE's own attorney — an Assistant Attorney General — admitted otherwise.
A sworn admission, a rewritten court order, and a federal certification signed anyway — mapped against the exact statutes it was supposed to satisfy.
By Raj Marni
Updated August 2026
Illustration. Not a depiction of the actual proceeding.
That certification is a legal condition of Virginia's $158 million-a-year federal TANF block grant. DCSE's own counsel told a judge on December 3, 2025 that the system "is not set up" to do what the certification requires — and DCSE's own witness testified under oath, that same day, that the system can't operate any other way. On April 24, 2026 — about four and a half months later — Secretary of Health and Human Resources Marvin B. Figueroa, serving under Gov. Abigail Spanberger, signed the same certification anyway, as his predecessors had done for years.
In a Loudoun County, Virginia courtroom, DCSE's own District Manager testified under oath — and DCSE's own attorney told the judge outright — that the system can't do what federal law requires. That law is specific: 42 U.S.C. §§ 654(16), 654a, 654(20)(A).
*Same certification track: ~$1.42 billion in TANF block grant funding received across the years these certifications cover (2018–2026) — the general TANF block grant, not a figure specific to the child-support certification alone.
Part One — The Admission
DCSE had every number since April 2022. Why did it need an audit, an intervention, and a new court order?
If APECS worked the way Virginia certifies it does, none of the following should have been necessary: the March 1, 2019 order was unambiguous, and every input DCSE needed — the monthly obligations, the 5% annual increases, the 6% interest requirement — was already in the system by April 21, 2022, when the case reopened. Instead, DCSE's own written account shows a three-year gap discovered only in mid-2025, a full audit, a motion asking a court to step in, and — five months later — a hearing that produced an entirely new governing order that fits the system.
The Timeline
April 21, 2022 — case reopens, arrears set per the April 18, 2022 order. May 16, 2025 — an accounting error is discovered. June 30, 2025 — a three-year interest gap is discovered. July 2025 — a full audit. July 31, 2025 — new balances set. August 12, 2025 — DCSE moves to intervene. October 17, 2025 — the court grants the motion. December 3, 2025 — the hearing below.
"...the 6% annual interest... had not been applied in the automated system since the case opened on April 21, 2022."Holly Parker, DCSE — July 31, 2025
"DCSE discovered an accounting error where the 5% annual increase for spousal support was not accurately applied."Holly Parker, DCSE — July 31, 2025
"In July 2025, a full audit of your case was conducted... Adjustments were made to your account on July 31, 2025, reflecting all balances determined during the audit."Holly Parker, DCSE — July 31, 2025
Reading the record — this is our synthesis, not a DCSE statement
Despite that full audit, the account still could not be fully corrected under the system as it exists — the same July 31 letter that describes the audit is the letter that admits the system can't calculate compounded interest at all. Twelve days later, on August 12, 2025, DCSE moved to intervene, asking the court to determine arrears rather than continuing to administer the March 2019 order as written. Read against what came next — Prentice's December 3 request for "an order between these parties that can be administered in accordance with 14.4 of the distribution hierarchy," and the January 9, 2026 order that adopted exactly that hierarchy (Part Two, below) — the sequence reads less like DCSE asking a court to confirm a balance, and more like DCSE seeking a governing order shaped around what its system could administer, rather than fixing the system to match what the order required.
DCSE, In Writing, July 31, 2025
"Since the automated child support system does not calculate compounded interest automatically, such amounts would need to be manually calculated."
Holly Parker, DCSE, letter to the account holder — not a one-time glitch. A stated, permanent limitation of the system.
DCSE's own witness — and its own attorney — told the court the system can't do it.
On December 3, 2025, in a hearing before Judge Stephen Sincavage, DCSE's District Manager testified under oath about the system's limits. DCSE's counsel then made the agency's position clear to the court — as legal argument, not sworn testimony, but on the record and in the agency's own words.
Sworn Testimony
Q: "Could you explain when that adjustment was made and what was adjusted?" A: "Yes. On May 16th of 2025, the adjustment was made to accurately reflect the 5% increase that should have increased annually on the spousal support amount. And on June 30th, an adjustment was made to reflect 6% interest that should have been charging on the child support arrearage throughout the life of the case, but had not been."
Kristin McDonald · District Manager, DCSE Winchester District Office — Tr. 100:11–19
Sworn Testimony
Q: "And is the system set up, is the child support payment system set up to do it any other way?" A: "No."
Kristin McDonald · District Manager, DCSE Winchester District Office — Tr. 102:18–20
Argument by Counsel — Not Under Oath
"What we have an issue with is if the Court were to issue an order telling the administrative agency how to allocate those hierarchy of payments, the system's not set up to do that. It's just creating the problem that we're trying to avoid by coming here today."
Anne Prentice · Assistant Attorney General, Counsel for DCSE — Tr. 122:5–9
"We don't want the Court to create an order. Basically, that we're not able to administer or maybe we won't be able to keep this case open because we can't administer that order telling us to allocate things differently than the system is set up to do."
Anne Prentice — Tr. 123:4–8
For the record
DCSE's counsel referenced an internal agency policy — cited in the hearing only as "14.4" — governing how the system's payment hierarchy is administered, and handed the court a printed copy for reference. That policy has since been obtained: DCSE Program Manual (May 2024), § 14.4, "Distribution Hierarchy," Resources p. 645. It confirms the same current-support-first hierarchy described in the testimony above.
In DCSE's Own Words
"Allocation is an automated system process. The portion of a payment applied to each account and subaccount is computed based on the case and financial data on the automated system... District Office staff must enter and update all case information accurately and timely. An incorrect support order amount or payment frequency will cause the payment to allocate incorrectly."
DCSE Program Manual, § 11.2(D)(5), Fiscal 452
Part Two — The Order
Five weeks later, the governing order changed to match the system.
Rather than requiring DCSE to implement the 2019 payment hierarchy, the court's January 9, 2026 order replaced it with a new one — one DCSE's own Assistant Attorney General had explicitly asked for, on the record, precisely because the agency's system could not do otherwise what is required of federal certification. The result is an order that conforms to APECS's limitations instead of the federal requirement, under 42 U.S.C. § 654a(e)(5)(A), that the system implement the court's actual orders.
March 1, 2019 Order
"For tax purposes, all payments received will be counted towards the outstanding child support payments first, until paid in full and then to the spousal support, unless requested otherwise."
Loudoun County Circuit Court, March 1, 2019 Order
January 9, 2026 Order — ¶2
"Any payments made by the Former Husband shall be credited to current obligations first, with any payments in excess of the current obligation applied to child support arrearages and then spousal support arrearages."
Trdic v. Marni, CL-00107389-01, entered Jan. 9, 2026, p. 2
Part Three — A Case in Point
One account. Simple arithmetic. A balance that shouldn't exist.
Figures below are approximate, drawn from the account holder's case records for DCSE Case No. 0005005576.
Child support obligation period: June 1, 2016 – September 2020 (51 months) Total obligation, that period: ~$120,000 Required payment order (governing hierarchy at the time): Child support credited first, in full — then spousal support* Total paid to date (August 2026): ~$305,000+ Child-support balance APECS currently reports: ~$61,500
* This was the governing hierarchy under the March 1, 2019 order. It was changed on January 9, 2026 — see Part Two, above — after DCSE's own attorney testified the system could not implement it.
If the required "child support first" order had been applied to ~$305,000 in payments against a ~$120,000 child-support obligation — the kind of running calculation a certified system is supposed to perform on its own — child support would have been satisfied years ago, with the remainder credited to spousal support. APECS instead reports roughly $61,500 in child-support arrears still outstanding, a balance built in part from manual, after-the-fact corrections (Part Five, below) that were never disclosed to the non-custodial parent before they were applied — from the same system DCSE's own witness testified, under oath, cannot correctly implement a custom court-ordered payment allocation (Part One, above).
Part Four — The Legal Basis
One certification. Four powers over a life. Every one of them now in question.
Virginia's authority to take each of these four actions exists only because the state certified it has "in effect" the specific federal procedures below — most of them required by 42 U.S.C. § 666, itself a condition of the § 654(20)(A) certification.
Passport Blocked
U.S. Department of State denial confirmed in writing by the U.S. Embassy, Ankara, December 8, 2023, citing HHS certification under 42 U.S.C. § 652(k). The certified balance behind that denial was extended, in part, by a manual correction the system should have applied automatically years earlier — and that correction was never disclosed to the non-custodial parent before it was made (Part Five, below).
What § 654(31)(A) requires: "each individual concerned is afforded notice of such determination and the consequences thereof, and an opportunity to contest the determination" before a new arrears determination is certified.
DCSE told the custodial parent in writing that the passport hold would lift June 30, 2025, and that DCSE's own legal unit had said it couldn't calculate the additional interest without a court order. Three days later, on June 30, 2025, DCSE added the interest anyway — no court order, no advance notice to the account holder.
DCSE's Own Words, Three Days Before
"We are not able to calculate the compounded interest that may be due... DCSE would need a court order setting the total amount due for child support in order to adjust our records."
Sue Bullard, DCSE, email to the custodial parent — June 27, 2025
Three days later — no court order in hand — DCSE calculated it anyway. The passport stayed blocked.
Wage Garnishments
~$110,000+ garnished, 2022–2025, against a balance shaped in part by manual corrections the system should have applied automatically (Part Five, below). No advance notice was sent — see below.
What § 666(b)(4)(A) requires: the State must send notice "that the withholding has commenced" and "of the procedures to follow" to contest it as a mistake of fact.
No notice was given before any garnishment was applied. Notice was provided only months later, and only after it was formally demanded.
Tax Intercepts
Federal tax refunds redirected to a balance shaped by the same pattern of manual, after-the-fact correction rather than automatic system tracking. IRS account transcript for tax year 2022 confirms a $47,003.59 refund applied to non-IRS debt. DCSE's own manual separately requires the NCP's "specific, documented permission" before any intercepted funds are applied to fees (§ 11.4(G)(5)(c), Fiscal 471) — not yet confirmed whether obtained.
What § 664(a)(3) requires: before referral, the State "shall send notice" instructing the individual of the steps to contest the determination.
No pre-offset notice was given at any time.
Negative Credit Reporting
Reported to credit bureaus based on a balance shaped in part by manual corrections the system should have made automatically (Part Five, below) — and reported without the notice federal law requires before such information reaches a credit bureau. Specific dates, bureaus, and score impact to be added once documented.
What § 666(a)(7)(B) requires: information may be reported "only after such parent has been afforded all due process required under State law, including notice and a reasonable opportunity to contest the accuracy of such information."
No such notice was given at any point since the case reopened in April 2022.
Part Five — The Ledger, Against the Statute
Each entry below is a documented act, tied to the exact federal requirement it fails to meet.
Sourced from DCSE's own case ledger, correspondence, and sworn courtroom testimony for Case No. 0005005576.
May 2022 – June 2024
A flat $1,298.34 charged every month, for 17 straight months
A system correctly maintaining this account would recalculate interest against the real, declining balance every month — that's what § 654a(e)(4)(A) and (e)(5)(A) require. Instead, the same $1,298.34 was charged every month for 17 straight months without ever varying — evidence the recalculation wasn't happening automatically at all. Reverse-engineered, the flat charge implies a fixed "phantom" principal of $259,668 that never matched the real account. DCSE's own manual confirms the system does not self-correct an overpaying account — "the automated system does not automatically generate a refund to an NCP who overpays on an open case" (§ 11.4(E), Fiscal 468) — meaning correction requires a person to notice and act, the same pattern of undisclosed, after-the-fact manual correction documented throughout this ledger.
§ 654a(e)(4)(A)§ 654a(d)
Certification signed during this period: John Littel, March 15, 2023.
$1,298.34
The same charge, every single month
17
Straight months — never recalculated
Implied fixed "phantom" principal: $259,668 — a balance the account never actually had
May 16, 2025
$24,906.36 applied in one lump sum — for an increase that was supposed to happen every January
Confirmed Under Oath — Kristi McDonald
A system correctly administering this order would apply the parties' 5% annual spousal-support escalation automatically, every January, as the agreement requires. Instead, per DCSE's own sworn testimony, years of that increase went unapplied — then arrived all at once, as a single $24,906.36 manual entry on May 16, 2025, a date with no connection to the agreement's own annual schedule. The account holder wasn't told until July 2025, and DCSE has not provided the underlying calculation despite being asked for it — no notice, before or at the time the entry was made, as § 654(31)(A) requires. A manual adjustment of this kind requires supervisor approval under DCSE Program Manual § 11.2(F)(9), Fiscal 459 — whether that approval exists is not yet confirmed.
§ 654a(e)(5)(A)§ 654(31)(A)
June 30, 2025
$10,988.74–$11,390.66 applied June 30, 2025 — three days after DCSE's own legal unit said it couldn't be calculated without a court order
Per a June 27, 2025 email from DCSE Support Enforcement Specialist Sue Bullard to the custodial parent, DCSE confirmed in writing that the arrears balance would be paid off June 30, 2025, the case would close, and the passport hold would be released that same day "as we will no longer show any child support arrears." The same email states DCSE's own legal unit had reviewed the orders and advised that DCSE "is not able to calculate the compounded interest that may be due" without a court order setting the total amount owed. Three days later, on June 30, 2025 — the date DCSE had told the custodial parent the hold would lift — DCSE added a new interest charge anyway, with no court order in hand, keeping the certification above the $2,500 threshold and the case open. A July 16, 2025 email from DCSE to the account holder describes the addition as $10,988.74 and states the underlying calculation was "currently under review"; sworn testimony given five months later, on December 3, 2025, cites a different figure — $11,390.66 — for the same entry. DCSE's own written position, three days earlier, was that it lacked the legal authority to perform this calculation without a court order. It made the calculation anyway.
§ 654(31)(A)§ 654a(e)(4)(A)§ 654a(d)
January 28, 2026
$97,349.12 added, then $96,719.86 subtracted — same day, no explanation for either
Two large entries on the same day — a $97,349.12 addition, then a $96,719.86 reduction that almost, but not exactly, reverses it — is not what an automated system produces; it's the signature of a manual correction made without a visible audit trail. Whatever the underlying cause, no notice of either entry — or of the $629.26 net increase they left behind — was provided to the non-custodial parent, the same notice § 654(31)(A) and § 654a(e)(5)(A) require. DCSE's own manual requires supervisor approval for any unapproved adjustment (§ 11.2(F)(9), Fiscal 459) and, if the correction addressed a Division error, a "dual disbursement" record (§ 11.4(F), Fiscal 468–469). Whether either record exists has not yet been confirmed — a records request is pending. On April 30, 2026, a formal written demand for a full explanation and documentation was sent to five named DCSE staff, with a five-business-day deadline (May 7, 2026). No response was received by that deadline.
§ 654a(d)§ 654a(e)(4)(A)
Manual Entry — In Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 654(31)(A)
$97,349.12 added. $96,719.86 subtracted. Same day.No explanation nor reason given.
Net change: +$629.26 — DCSE case ledger, January 28, 2026
2022–2025
$110,000+ garnished; $58,565 in federal tax refunds intercepted
Every one of these enforcement actions assumes the underlying balance is accurate and current — the exact thing § 654a(g)(1)(B)–(C) requires the system to monitor automatically. Instead, the balance behind them was repeatedly built by hand, months or years after the fact, through the entries documented above — and at least some of those entries, the May and June 2025 additions, were never disclosed to the non-custodial parent before being applied.
§ 654a(g)(1)(B)–(C)
Dec. 3, 2025
DCSE's own witness and its own attorney tell the court, on the record, that the system can't do it
McDonald's answer is sworn testimony. Prentice's statements are the agency's legal argument, made openly in court. See Part One, above.
§ 654a(e)(5)(A)
Certification signed about 4.5 months later: Marvin B. Figueroa, April 24, 2026.
Part Six — The Paper Trail
Four Secretaries, four signatures, one repeated promise.
Every certified Virginia TANF State Plan since at least 2018 contains the same sentence, signed by whoever held the office of Secretary of Health and Human Resources at the time — obtained via Virginia FOIA request.
Same sentence. Four signatures. 2018 to 2026.
Virginia TANF State Plan Certifications — obtained via Virginia FOIA request to VDSS
2018
Daniel Carey, MDSecretary, Health and Human Resources · Jan. 2018 – Nov. 2021 · PYs 2018–2019
Requires a statewide automated system "designed effectively and efficiently to assist management in the administration of the State plan, so as to control, account for, and monitor all the factors in the support enforcement collection… process."
The record: The cumulative pattern documented throughout this page — flat, non-recalculating interest charges; years-late manual corrections; DCSE's own manual admitting the system depends on manually entered data and that "an incorrect support order amount or payment frequency will cause the payment to allocate incorrectly" — is evidence the system does not "control, account for, and monitor all the factors" as required.
§ 654a(e)(5)(A) Contradicted by the Record
Requires the State to "promptly establish and update, maintain, and regularly monitor" case records "on the basis of… judicial proceedings and orders."
The record: Sworn testimony, Dec. 3, 2025 — the system "is not set up" to allocate payments per a court-ordered hierarchy.
§ 654a(e)(4)(A) Contradicted by the Record
The case registry must record amounts "due or overdue under the order" — tied to the order's actual terms, not an independent figure.
The record: A flat $1,298.34 charged for 17 straight months, never matching the declining balance it was calculated against.
§ 654(31)(A) Contradicted by the Record
Before certifying arrears over $2,500 for passport action, "each individual concerned is afforded notice of such determination… and an opportunity to contest."
The record: $24,906.36 (May 2025) and $10,988.74–$11,390.66 (June 30, 2025) — the latter added three days after DCSE's own legal unit said, in writing, that it couldn't be calculated without a court order.
On the Record, This Year
"We uncovered a $52 million loss at the Department of Social Services on a failed effort to replace the commonwealth's antiquated child support enforcement system. Virginia paid serious money, and all we got were tools that barely worked."
Gov. Abigail Spanberger, addressing the General Assembly's money committees — August 20, 2026
By the Numbers
1998
First JLARC Warning
Legislative watchdog flagged the system as antiquated
2nd
Oldest System, Nationally
As of 2023, per independent reporting
$52M
Lost on Failed Replacement
Confirmed by Gov. Spanberger, Aug. 2026
$158M
Annual TANF Block Grant
Fixed since 1996
~$1.42B
TANF Funding, 2018–2026
Block grant total, not specific to the child support certification alone
